Marriage

For jogging nude at High
School track, Catholic Priest
must register as sex offender.

You know, I am sure, that we often just take things for granted when it comes to culture. That is, we participate in customs and behaviors that we have not really thought much about, just “going with the flow,” so to speak. It occurs to me that I have never thought much about marriage, more specifically, the purpose of marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? I suppose in the ideal American marriage we assume that two people (of the opposite sex) fall in love and marry, the marriage being a public affirmation of their newfound status in the community. We also assume that no one will be married to more than one person at a time (although serial monogamy is common). We also assume that the marriage will produce children. Also, until not so very long ago, we also assumed that those who married would be of the same race (miscegenation was commonly against the law). There were, and are, certain legal rights that go along with marriage, such as the rights of inheritance. And of course there were also certain obligations (spouses were responsible for each others care and etc.). Marriage also seems to function to legitimize fatherhood. That is, there is no way (until recently that is) to determine who the father of a child is, although the mother is always known. If a man’s wife has a child it is automatically assumed the husband is the father and he is legally obliged to care for the child. There were always exceptions to all these cultural beliefs, but we seldom thought about them. For example, many married couples never had children. Indeed, in rare cases, they never even engaged in sexual relations. Many people did not marry for love and marriages for convenience were not uncommon, marrying for money or to get citizenship for someone, and things like that. And, of course, the idea that people who married should stay married for life, has slowly over the years become less and less of an expectation and less and less common. And, because of advances in medical science, if a man could not father a child, he could attain one through artificial insemination if he wished. Although technically he was not the (biological) father, he was legally the father. In any case, we muddled along with our ideas about marriage, motherhood and fatherhood, and didn’t really worry too much about these exceptional cases (although at one time there was a lot of worry about divorce as people thought they should stay married no matter what if there were children involved (a rather old-fashioned view nowadays). It has also become fairly common for unmarried women to have children though artificial insemination (or more ordinary means, but without marriage).

Now, because gays and lesbians are demanding equal rights when it comes to marriage, we are having to think more carefully about our ideas of marriage. Obviously there is a great deal of resistance to Gay and Lesbian marriages. One common reaction to this is to pass laws specifying that marriage must be defined as a union between one man and one woman. Polygamy is against the law, Polyandry doesn’t exist (most people probably never heard of polyandry). It is the case, however, that there are fairly sizeable numbers of polygamists in the U.S., Canada and Mexico (estimated at 30,000). In some cases these polygamous marriages are tolerated, mostly because no one seems overly concerned about them unless some obvious criminal activity is uncovered. And, as polygamy is against the law, these people simply marry one person legally and then take more wives in a sort of common law arrangement. These polygamous groups have existed for a long time, they produce large numbers of children, and seemingly function without many more problems that traditional marriages. I should point out that polygamy is quite likely the preferred marriage form in much (perhaps even most) of the world but, practically, monogamy is more common.

It is probably safe to say that in most, if not all societies, the main purpose and expectation of marriage is to produce children. Fatherhood seems to be exceptionally important. Even in cases of divorce, where fathers are not living with their children, they are still legally considered fathers. And if a single woman has a child she usually knows and names the father, even though he is not expected to legally provide for the child. But it is the legality of fatherhood that is of great importance in most cultures. For this reason a woman, in at least one culture I know about, can marry a ghost. That is, if a man dies without having left a child, a woman, if she has sufficient cattle or resources, can marry his ghost, take in another man to father a child, which becomes legally the child of the ghost, and thus his name will continue on in the clan genealogy. It is the ceremony that determines the fatherhood, not the fact of biological fatherhood. Similarly, in the case of polyandry, where a woman has more than one husband (usually two or more brothers), the legal paternity is established by a ceremony so that no matter who the biological father is, all the brothers can legally have children. Adoptions are fairly common in most societies. As children, in all known societies, are highly valued, this is of great importance. Legal adoptions in the U.S. perform essentially the same function. Seen in this broader context, it is not at all surprising to know that Lesbians, who desire children, bring in a man (or sperm) to father a child of whom they are the parents (presumably without one being the father?). Or Gays who want to have children can adopt or find a woman willing to bear a child for them. I doubt that a woman could legally arrange a ghost marriage in the U.S. Our laws are not that advanced. It does seem to me that trying to legislate against Gay and Lesbian marriages is ultimately going to fail. The response to Proposition 8 indicates to me that most Americans are perfectly willing to allow same sex couples to enjoy the same privileges (and problems) of marriage that everyone else enjoys. And contrary to the worst fears of some extremists, I don’t believe people are inevitably going to be marrying their horses, dogs, sheep, or goats (and certainly not their chickens!). Let us now worry about more important things, like where our next meal may be coming from.

LKBIQ:

The most happy marriage I can imagine to myself would be the union of a deaf man to a blind woman.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
TILT:
In the earliest legends Robin Hood was a commoner. In later versions he presumably has noble blood.

Proposition 8 and Gaza

NY couple splint butterfly’s
broken wing, find it a ride to
Florida, where it now thrives.

All’s well on the eye front. One fixed, one to go next month. As I was being prepped for the surgery a very little, very elderly lady, who had obviously just finished with her surgery, said “it’s really easy.” She was right. I love her for it.

I started to read Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer, a book about Mormons, especially the surprisingly large number of Mormons who still practice polygamy, including some right here in Windy City (who have recently moved across the border from Canada). I was stopped when I came across the following sentence: “Uncle Rulon likes to remind his followers of Brigham’s warning that for those who commit unspeakable sins as homosexuality, or having sexual intercourse with a member of the African race, ‘the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.’”

Uncle Rulon was the 92 year-old absolute ruler of a large contingent of Polygamist Mormons living on the Colorado/Utah border. As the Polygamist Mormons have been an embarrassment to what is now the more mainstream Mormon Church, and are not recognized by the mainstream church, we cannot take Uncle Rulon’s position as that of the contemporary Mormon Church. However, one wonders why the Mormon Church was willing to invest 25 million dollars in California to pass the notorious Proposition 8? Just what is the Mormon Church’s position on homosexuality these days? And of course it has only been in recent years they agreed that Africans (and African-Americans) had souls. I should think this action in California will ultimately become as big an embarrassment to them as the polygamists (maybe on the contrary, it might actually increase their ranks, as there seem to be so many kindred souls about). Anyway, I believe it was a mistake. As far as gay marriage goes, although I have little respect for James Carville, I think he hit the right note when asked what he thought about gay marriage and replied, “I was against it, until I found out I didn’t have to have one.” Whatever happened to “live and let live?”

If you might think that ruining the lives and happiness of 18,000 married couples in California is undesirable, mean, and hateful, consider what the Israelis are doing to the million and a half Palestinians they have trapped in the Gaza strip. Now, not only have they cut off their electicity and power, they have even blockaded and stopped them from even receiving humanitarian aid from the UN. From the UN! I gather that no one is much interested in this as I can find very little in the way of objections to it, and no action of any kind to help the Palestinians. Perhaps this is because the Israelis have also established a news blackout so no reporters have been allowed into Gaza to report on this genocidal moment. And this is happening at the very moment when Olmert is finally telling the truth about the necessity for Israel to give up territory, including part of Jerusalem, for peace. As he is on the way out, he can now speak honestly for a change. It seems no one is listening. When it comes to Israel, morality and law do not seem to apply.

Motor-mouth Sarah Palin was caught on videotape pardoning a Thanksgiving turkey, and at the very moment she was speaking a mile a minute, they were killing turkeys right behind her. Once her mouth gets going it seems she is oblivious to all else. When women do stupid things and get criticized for it, it is not sexism. And women do stupid things at times, just as men do. Why should they be exempt?

I confess I am one of those Progressive Obama supporters who is not too pleased over some of his cabinet and other selections. I’m not really bothered that so many of them might have formerly worked in the Clinton administration (where else would he find so much experience and talent), but I am bothered by the hawks (or at least former hawks). I want out of Iraq. I want diplomacy with Iran and Russia, I want a massive reduction in the national defense budget, and an end to “empire.” Most of all, I want Bush/Cheney, et al, held responsible for their crimes against our nation and humanity.


Do not be frightened
of the blackness of the night,
it hides the full moon.

Morialekafa

TILT:
In our supermarket today a single mango was $3.29. A single sweet potato was $1.29. A single artichoke was $2.00. A single t-bone steak was $12.95.

A Nation of Laws - Pshaw

There will be no Morialekafa on Wednesday, November 19th. I am having eye surgery.

Man loses penis and testicle
from medical misdiagnosis
in prison, settles for $300,000.

For the past eight years, and continuing on at the moment, we are less and less a nation of laws, in spite of claims to the contrary. Not only is that the case, we have been jettisoning both ethics and morality along the way. If this trend continues I fear we are not going to like the consequences.

Consider the case of Joe Lieberman Here is a Senator who claims to be a Democrat (although temporarily an Independent), and caucuses with the Democrats, but who campaigned for John McCain, the Republican candidate for President. Not only did he campaign for him, he also mounted a very negative attack on the Democratic candidate, saying things that were patently false and harmful. This was, I suppose, not immoral or illegal, but if not entirely unethical I do not know what would be. Now, with less than an abject apology, he is being allowed to maintain his powerful Chairmanship and continue on in the Senate as if nothing happened. Why is this so? Because of politics. Harry Reid and the Democrats say they they need his vote. Ethics, schmethics, It’s politics that matter.

Consider the campaign of McCain, one of the nastiest, sleaziest, destructive in history. And consider who he picked as his running mate, a woman unbelievably unqualified to be the vice-president, a slash and burn demogogue who incited her followers to near violence. This pick was an insult to the voters of this country, and as she was picked for purely political purposes, it was highly unethical, as was the campaign in general. But McCain has just met with the President-Elect and everything is now hunky-dory. It’s just politics. Obama feels he needs McCain’s support.

More importantly, consider the fact that Obama is apparently not going to try to bring charges against any of those involved in torture. Apparently they feel there are more important things to do. More important than holding accountable people who did the same things we executed Japanese for? More important than why we held the Nuremberg trials? It is true we have other important things to do, but forgiving war crimes is not something that should just be just dismissed as a nuisance. A few very low-level people were convicted and sentenced to prison for Abu Graib. It was said they were just acting on their own initiative. But isn’t it strange that these relatively unsophisticated ordinary military personnel just happened to discover the very techniques that our psychologists had determined would be the best to apply to Iraqi captives – nudity,dogs, sexual humiliation, and etc. And subsequently Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others have admitted to holding high-level meetings to discuss which techniques should be used on which prisoners. They want us to believe that “enhanced interrogation techniques” are not the same as torture. They may get away with this. So where is the rule of law?

Also consider the case of Senator Stevens of Alaska. His Senate colleagues cannot decide whether he should be expelled or not, even though he is a convicted felon. They are postponing their vote on this, hoping that he will lose his bid for re-election and they won’t have to deal with it. This is a clear-cut case of law-breaking, as well as an ethical question. The Senate apparently doesn’t care enough about the possibility of having a convicted felon among them to just come out and say no, under no circumstances, which might very well have affected the election had they done so earlier.

Of course the legal, ethical, and moral violations of Bush/Cheney and their cronies over the past eight years are so numerous and monumental to require thousands of pages, but they have not been held accountable. And whether they will ever be or not is doubtful. There is no question about their guilt. Invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, torture, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, war profiteering, outing a CIA agent, illegal wiretapping, and on and on. The Democrats, following Nancy Pelosi, refused even to consider impeachment. Why? Because they felt it was politically inexpedient. So, again, politics, takes precedence over justice. These are no minor infractions that are involved, hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed or displaced, no one knows how many illegally held captive and tortured, billions of taxpayer dollars distributed to contractors for non-bid contracts and cost-plus ventures, and so on and on.

While I applaud Obama’s desire to “reach across the aisle,” I do not want him reaching across the aisle to collaborate with war criminals and obvious lawbreakers. I believe it will be a terrible mistake, and send the wrong message to the world, if he does not try to seek accountability for all these crimes and wrongdoings. This is far too important to just “let bygones be bygones.” From what I have seen and heard so far I fear this may be what is going to happen. Ethics, morality, and law just don’t seem to be important when it come to politics. Unfortunately, no society will endure for long if they throw these methods of social control out the window for the sake of politics as usual. Obama and his new Attorney General are going to have to confront this no matter where it leads.

LKBIQ:
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

TILT:
William Clarence Eckstine (Billy Eckstine) died on March 8, 1993. He was almost 79 years old.

Everybody?

I just watched the 60 minute interview with Barack and Michelle Obama. I cannot imagine a finer, more intelligent, more down-to-earth and pleasant couple. I am so proud of my country for overcoming our years of savage and unremitting racism and voting for a black (and white) President. They are going to make a marvelous first couple and we should all be proud of them. Barack Obama has the potential to become one of our greatest Presidents and certainly has greater problems to face that most Presidents in the past (apart from FDR). We should not allow the surviving Brafia to try to bring him down as they did with Bill Clinton. If we all pull together we may in fact overcome the disastrous nightmare years of Bush/Cheney.


One of the peculiarities of American speech that has always amazed me, by its total lack of precision, but commonplace usage, is the phrase “everybody knows,” or “everybody does,” or “everybody feels,” or everybody.something or other. We hear this all the time, and not just in Everybody Loves Raymond. Everybody knows that America is a “center-right” country. First of all it is obvious that not everybody even knows what center-right refers to, and secondly, if they knew it, it would certainly be the case that not everybody would think so. How about “everybody loves apple pie?” I, for one, do not love apple pie, although I will eat it if served to me. Sometimes these claims are so outrageous that no one takes them seriously, recognizing it is just a figure of speech, and some of these claims are somewhere closer to the truth than others. “Everybody votes,” would not be taken seriously, but how about “everybody loves a winner” (even this is questionable because everybody loves a good loser?). Everybody loves Obama would not be taken literally, of course. What about “everybody values their freedom?” It seems to me if this were literally true no one would get married or agree to go into debt. “Everybody loves democracy,” is questionable because millions of people have never experienced democracy and don’t understand what it is. While we might want to believe that “everybody loves America,” it is pretty obvious this is not the case. Thus every time you hear someone say everyone…, you know it is not true. But people say these things all the time, and all the time we think to ourselves, “that is not true,” but only occasionally do we bother to challenge the speaker. It seem to be the case that if it is something that you, yourself love, you are much more apt to believe it (even then you know that realistically it is not true). So we go on year after year making these grandiose pronouncements that we know are false, and our listeners let them go unchallenged even though they don’t believe them. It’s like a conspiracy to avoid thought or reality at all costs, where opinions replace facts and conversation can proceed uninterruptedly. Once when I was riding in a car with a woman friend, she suddenly announced, “everybody loves prunes.” I looked at her with disbelief but said nothing. After a pause she said, “well, some people like prunes.” I remained politely silent. Then, after a long pause, she continued with a sigh, “well, I like prunes.” An honest woman, were there more like her.

There is a flip side to this strange speech phenomena as well. Just this afternoon someone said to me “nobody like the Vikings” (the football team). I said, foolishly, of course, some people like the Vikings, they are their home team. We were both aware we were just making conversation, drivel, that is. But you find the same transparent falsehoods when saying “nodody likes…” as you do when saying everybody likes…”Nobody likes a dictator.” How about those who support dictators? “Nobody likes okra” (I am srongly inclined to believe this). “Nobody likes B.O.” (there are millions of people who don’t even think about B.O.). “Nobody likes a crook” (except his mother or those who profit by him). “Nobody likes Bush” (except for the roughly 28% who apparently do. And I guess Laura must like him, too). “Nobody likes a bully” (I think this may be pretty close to as universal as we can get). “Nobody likes Thomas Woolf (any more, except those who do still like him and form groups to discuss him, etc.). “Nobody likes a loser,” except those who do. “Nobody likes Dick Cheney” (a truism?). How about “nobody likes people who waste their time with nonsense” (I apologize, it’s Sunday).

Where, by the way, is Warshington? John McCain and others speak of this place all the time.


LKBIQ:
Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us.
Henrik Tikkanen


TILT: Swiss cheese is called that in the U.S. because it resembles Swiss Emmental.

The Old Way - Book

I have been reading The Old Way A Story of the First People, by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. This is a delightful book, a sort of combination memoir and ethnographic account of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert. It is not entirely clear exactly why Laurence Marshall decided in 1950 to take his wife and two teen age children on an expedition into the Kalahari in search of the Bushmen. No white person had ever gone there and, indeed, very few, if any, black people, other than the Bushment themselves were known to have visited there. The trip appears to have been motivated by nothing more than the spirit of adventure. It was by no means certain they would even locate any of the elusive Bushmen who inhabited this sparse and difficult environment. But with trucks loaded with gasoline, water, spare parts, medical supplies and food the Marshalls set out on their great adventure.

After much difficulty and searching they did find small bands of these natives and were able to establish rapport and live among them for some time. This resulted in a number of books and motion pictures of this primitive way of life, including Elizabeth Marshall Thomas’s well know The Harmless People, along with her mother’s more detailed ethnographies.

In the 1950’s it was pretty much agreed that the Bushmen lived in the sparse reaches of the Kalahari because they had been driven there by stronger Bantu and other tribes. As it turns out this was not so, the Bushmen had lived in their desert environment for thousands of years. With little more than digging sticks, stone knives, ostrich shell canteens, the skins of animals, and tiny bows and arrows tipped with deadly poisons, the Bushmen made their living from the desert during droughts as well as well as more comfortable times. In this book Elizabeth Thomas goes into much detail as to just how these wonderful people managed to eke out a living much more comfortable than we would have imagined. Although there were occasional instances of infanticide, for obvious and necessary reasons, old people and the handicapped were well taken care of and lived long and productive lives. Living under such harsh conditions, and in such small groups, the Bushmen developed strong cooperative ties between families and methods for avoiding disputes or settling them if they arose. The Bushmen were skilled hunters and trackers as well as super botanists who knew well the variety of plants and animals they depended upon. This is an absolutely fascinating account of how the first people must have lived and you cannot help but marvel at the human genius at work.
Watching my wife at the kitchen table with her scissors and coupons, hunting and gathering in her own way, I was struck by the observation that it was the same human story, even though it was not at all the same. Reading this book made me feel humble indeed. What happened to the Bushmen in recent years made me feel ashamed.

What makes me even more ashamed, however, is the outbreak of racist activity resulting from the election of Barack Obama. According to the AP (on Buzzflash) various kinds of hate crimes and grafitti and what have you are occurring all over the country, some of them very serious. And Obama has been the subject of more assassination threats than any previous President. I suppose this is to be expected, but that doesn’t make it in any way acceptable. We have a wonderful black (and white) President, but racism and ignorance still pervades many sectors of our society. What is just as bad, if not worse, are the other hatreds that seem to infest some of us. What do you make of the priest in South Carolina who says his parishioners cannot take communion if they voted for Obama because they were “collaborating with evil” (or something like that). These are no doubt the same people who think nothing of killing Middle Easterners by the hundreds of thousands. Or how about those marvelous Mormons who just spent 25 million to ruin the lives of some 18,000 happily married couples in California? As I have said before, there is a fatal flaw in the human species. If there really were a God of some kind, and if he/she/it was truly omnipotent, we should get a mutation of some kind, making us much better people. Don’t bet on it.

LKBIQ:
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death.
James F. Byrnes

TILT:
On July 2, 1961, Ernest Hemingway killed himself with a shotgun at his home in Ketchum, Idaho. He was not quite 62 years of age.

Never ending topic

Bank robber, frustrated by empty
cash drawers, threatens to
complain to bank manager.

Ah, Idaho! Shortly after Barack Obama was elected President a woman approached one of the teachers at her child’s school and asked him, “When are you going to start your gay agenda? Let me know when you do so I can take my daughter out of school.” I think the teacher may have been too stunned to ask her what the hell she was talking about.

In Rexburg, Idaho, widely believed to be the reddest part of one of the reddest states, the second grade children were overheard chanting in their school bus: “assassinate Obama, assassinate Obama.” They did not understand what this meant but they must have learned it from someone. I wonder who.

There are said to be many Obama jokes circulating here. I have only heard one. People here don’t tell them to me. I wonder why.

Here are some more brief observations on the seemingly never-ending assault rifle question: My anonymous friend who works hard on this issue has indicated there are legal arguments about this topic that could go on endlessly. I believe him. But he also makes an assumption that I believe to be unfounded. Namely, that the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to keep and bear assault weapons (as well as other weapons). I do not believe it follows from the right to keep and bear arms that one necessarily has the right to specifically have assault weapons. There is nothing in the basic idea of the right to keep and bear arms that indicates assault rifles in particular have to be involved. There may be extenuating circumstances. I think this is the situation with the possession of assault rifles (or other fully automatic weapons). It seems to me there are two basic and related questions involved: (1) is it in the best interest of the community, public, or nation for ordinary citizens to be allowed to possess certain weapons (as assault rifles or other machine guns. And (2) are there any compelling reasons why citizens should be allowed to possess such weapons. When stated in this way I tend to lean in the direction of banning such weapons (although I do nothing to bring this about). As I have indicated before, I tend to believe they should probably be banned because there is no compelling reason for individual citizens to have them. As near as I can tell, the main reason for wanting such weapons is the fear that your government is going to take them away, or we are about to be attacked by someone-or-other. I believe these fears are irrational and hence I do not believe the possession of such weapons is necessary, and they are a greater potential danger to our citizens and our nation than they are worth.. You may, of course disagree with this. But there is a strange irony involved in this whole business that I find mystifying.

I think it is a pretty good bet that these same “gun nuts” (I did not invent this term, by the way, it exists in the literature on this subject) or, if you prefer these GGOWFS (gentle gentlemen obsessed with firearms – I made this up) are the main category of individuals that elected and maintained Bush/Cheney in office over these past eight years. And it is Bush/Cheney that have run roughshod over our individual rights and liberties, including those found in the Constitution. Obama was elected by a landslide specifically to turn back the tide of dictatorial fascism that Bush/Cheney have tried desperately to install (happily as it turns out they were too incompetent to succeed). But it is Obama, in principle, at least, who wants to protect our individual liberties that these people paradoxically fear. Apparently they have this fear because he said he might be in favor of banning assault rifles (this, to me, is not one of the most important rights of man, certainly not in the same category as habeas corpus, for example). I do not believe there is any fundamental right to bear assault weapons, even though there is a fundamental right to self protection. There are other ways of protecting yourself that do not pose a similar danger to the body politic or the public. Anonymous also suggest that assault rifles are a “tool” to prevent the “decay” of the social system or culture. But the only decay involved that is relevant here is that brought about by Bush/Cheney and which, at least hopefully, will be stopped by our new President (and without the use of assault rifles). Anyway, I think this issue is too deeply philosophical and abstract for my meager Professorial brain. I have a solution:

Let us all meet at a pre-arranged time, heavily armed, at the not-so-O.K.-corral and shoot it out. This is the American way. Of course in all fairness you will have to wait for me to get my cataracts removed. I don’t see or shoot as well as I once did. I can borrow an assault rifle from one of my neighbors. As near as I can tell from all the noise they all must have one (except strangely for one neighbor who was actually removed from a jury because he did not own a gun).. When the shooting becomes unbearable I sometimes stand on the porch and yell as loud as I can, “when did the war begin?” They don’t pay attention, being too immersed in blowing up all those tree stumps and tin cans.

I do not believe Hillary Clinton is going to become Secretary of State. I suspect Richardson might (my predictions are usually wrong but I go on making them anyway).

LKBIQ:

The hatred you're carrying is a live coal in your heart - far more damaging to yourself than to them.
Lawana Blackwell
TILT:
Peach Melba was created in 1893 by the great French chef, Auguste Escoffier, in honor of the Australian soprano, Dame Nellie Melba.

Going nowhere

Mr. Anonymous:

I am pretty certain this is a discussion that will eventually lead nowhere, but to continue it for the moment, and for the sake of the argument:


I have no illusions this will persuade any of the true believers… Yes, this is a truism, as such it needs no facts or logic.

…It is written in a deceptive way as if you are trying to lull the reader into thinking there is no agenda to ban certain clasess of guns. I do not believe that taking guns away from people who already own them is identical with banning certain classes of guns. I have never seen it said anywhere that there is any intention of taking away any presently owned guns (am I wrong about this?). I admitted that Obama might want to ban the sales of certain kinds of weapons. I see nothing deceptive in this.

If you would protest vehemently…why would you be surprised if others…
As above, I do not think they are threatened. If they were I would not be surprised.

…the discussion of hunting is totally irrelevant…While I agree that the right to keep and bear arms did not have to do with hunting, I believe the issue of hunting is entirely relevant. While I cannot prove it with “facts,” I believe it is logical to believe that in the eyes of many people in the United States the possession of hunting rifles and shotguns is considered “legitimate.” Handguns are probably considered more or less legitimate for home defense, although many people would disagree. That is, most people perceive that such weapons are useful for obvious purposes. Those who wish to ban assault weapons do not perceive them in quite the same way. How do you conclude that the right to bear arms is not about perceived needs? Why would anyone want them if they did not perceive a need for them? I also have some trouble with your distinction between needs and rights. I cannot see how switching to perceived needs is much of a diversion.

I have never read Kopel. I do not dispute that people have a fundamental right to self defense. And I suppose that one might argue that owning an assault rifle is for self defense. However, the right of self defense does not, it seems to me, necessarily specify the right to employ firearms for that purpose. One could also use hand grenades or howitzers for self defense but, that would probably not be entirely desirable from the point of view of the public at large. It’s an interesting point but I don’t think the right of self defense specifically has to do with firearms.

…I think you have lived a very sheltered life as a professor…You know absolutely nothing about my life other than that I was a Professor of Anthropology at UCLA. And you accuse me of stereotyping! Furthermore, while we do want to prepare for the unexpected as well as the expected, I, at least, am not preparing to be attacked from outer space, nor am I expecting to be attacked by my own government, or Russia, or China, or Cuba, or Eskimos.

…The government will want to ban any weapons, and in another breath you said …Obama would be in favor of banning…I did not say there was no threat the government would ban weapons, I said there was no threat they would take away weapons. There is no contradiction involved. I guess you would argue that banning something is the same as taking it away, but I don’t think so.

…it is proper to own assault weapons…to defend your right to own guns if your government wanted to take them away…I don’t think I said that. I implied that people had a right to protect their guns if they were threatened, I didn’t say assault weapons. Indeed, the question as to whether people should own assault weapons at all is one of the points at issue. And I do believe it irrational to believe the government might take away your guns (of any kind), just because they want to have some controls here and there. Banning the sale of assault rifles is not the same as taking away your guns. I said I believed it was irrational to believe we are about to be attacked by our government, another government, another race, or people gone mad with hunger or something, and for that reason to insist upon owning assault rifles, 50 caliber machine guns or whatever.

As far as stereotyping groups of people, and using incendiary language, I confess to being guilty. But there is a group (or bunch, or number or collection, or category) of people in the United States that seem to believe they should have absolute rights to own any kinds of weapons they want, irrespective of the public good, and, indeed think everyone should be armed, people should be allowed to carry guns into schools, national parks, and even churches. There have been towns that have even passed laws saying that all citizens should carry arms. I confess, I think these people are “nuts.” You may disagree. It is, after all, a free country. But you still cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.

LKBIQ:
We merely want to live in peace with all the world, to trade with them, to commune with them, to learn from their culture as they may learn from ours, so that the products of our toil may be used for our schools and our roads and our churches and not for guns and planes and tanks and ships of war.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

TILT:
The first commercially successful automatic pistol was marketed in 1884.

Comments on guns

Man hits girlfriend in face
with cooking pot when
she serves macaroni for dinner.

LKBIQ: Little known but interesting quotes.
TILT: Things I learned today.

Wow! I didn’t realize how the mention of guns could set off such a hornet’s nest of responses, most of them rather insulting. So let me go on record to make clear what it is I think about this issue (my opinions, that is). I have no illusions this will persuade any of the true believers.

First, I have owned guns since I was twelve years old. While I no longer hunt, I have hunted fairly extensively in the past. I currently own guns. They are all legal and are either for hunting or for defense of my home. I have never felt that anyone was going to try to take my guns away. I do not believe at the moment anyone is going to try to take them away. If anyone were to try to take them away I would certainly protest vehemently.

Some claim that Barack Obama is anti-gun, even though he has said plainly he is not going to take away anyone’s rifles, shotguns, or handguns. I guess he has said he would be in favor of banning assault weapons, and some controls over guns in some circumstances (as in the inner cities where they are used in gang wars).

As an experienced hunter I know that no one needs an assault rifle or a 50 caliber machine gun for that purpose. Thus the only rationale I can see for wishing to own such weapons, if you are not preparing to attack someone, is for defense. But defense from what? (1) defense of your home and person, (2) to defend your right to own guns if your government wants to take them away, (3) defense from being attacked by another country. or (4) defense in case of a “race war,” or a national collapse so serious as to result in uncontrollable riots over food and such.

If you start from the premise that one or more of these things is about to happen I can see why you would be concerned. But as you clearly do not need assault weapons to defend your home, and as I do not believe there is any justifiable, credible, or realistic fear that any of these conditions are at all likely, I am led to believe that ordinary people do not need to own such high-powered deadly weapons. The problem, as I see it, is that there are people who do believe such things are imminent. I live in a very conservative community where everyone owns guns and many believe there could be a national calamity or a serious effort on the part of the government to take away their guns. Indeed, I have at least two close friends who believe this. I know from personal experience there is no point in trying to reason with such people. However, I believe their fears are completely irrational and represent some form of paranoia or, perhaps merely hysteria. This is what I believe is causing the extraordinary increase in gun sales, including assault rifles. As in my view these fears are completely irrational, I think they might well be considered a form of insanity. Even if assault weapons were banned.it would not mean anyone was in fact taking away your guns. While I do not actively engage in trying to ban such guns I do think they are unnecessary and, in reality, mostly toys for those who are involved in the culture of guns.

And yes, I know there are people armed only with small arms that have and are holding off armies far more heavily armed. I believe most everyone is aware of this, including Barack Obama and others in government. As I know about how many firearms are privately owned in the U.S., and as I also know what Americans attitudes towards their guns are, I know that no one would be foolish enough to try to take them away, thus I do not worry needlessly about it. And yes, I know that in principle every individual whether rural or urban should have the same rights to own a gun, I also believe there are some situations where there should be tighter controls, as in the inner cities, for example, where we know the main purpose for owning handguns is to kill each other in devastating, useless, and out of control gang wars.

To the anonymous individual who seems to think I need a lecture on anthropology let me say I don’t appreciate it. Yes, of course I am familiar with cultural relativity, familiar enough to know that while values and beliefs may be relative to culture, they can also be terribly dysfunctional and not even in the best interest of those who hold them, let alone to others. If you must have facts, footnotes, references and whatever for every statement or opinion you read you should not be reading blogs. Try the Scientific American.

Finally, to the irreverant young moron who addressed me as “irrelevant old Professor,” you had better take some courses in logic. To imply that I might condone atrocities by Muslims or others because I object to our country torturing children is not only completely illogical, but absurd, and even borders on slanderous.

LKBIQ:
We are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal.
-Carl Bernstein

TILT:
I find it rather amazing that Professors are apparently held in such low esteem. I guess my opinions would have more credibility had I stuck with ditch-digging and cement-carrying.

Pipe dream?

Man calls police to report a
burglary, leaves pot pipe in
plain sight, may get 26 months.

Joke overheard today:

“What’s the first thing Obama is going to do as President?”
“I don’t know, what?”
“Pardon O.J. Simpson.”

Hahahahaha. Very funny. Very racist. Very mildly indicative of what I fear is going to become a great problem.

While I agree with Obama that we should strive for bipartisanship if we wish to accomplish the important things that desperately need doing, I fear it may turn out to be nothing but a pipe dream. You know, the kind of dream that smokers of opium had while indulging in their habit. A dream that is so unrealistic and far-fetched there is no possibility that it could ever actually happen. I do not like being so cynical but I see no reason to believe the Brafia/Republicans are either ready or willing to engage in serious bipartisanship. They pretty obviously are not good losers. The right wing hatemerchants are already on the attack, even blaming Obama for the recession (utter absurdity never keeps them from their appointed rounds). There are I believe some 30 different groups on MySpace calling for Obama to be impeached (he is not even President yet). There is also, if you can believe it, a Republican sponsored ad that takes Obama to task for having done nothing in his first four days (I repeat, utter absurdity means nothing to these people). Lieberman gave a speech in which he implied that Obama was perhaps not the best choice for President at the moment. I firmly believe (but I truly hope I am wrong) Obama’s opponents will do the same thing to him as they did to Clinton. They will bring up every petty complaint they can and make things up just to keep Obama from being able to accomplish anything. If they can’t find a Whitewater or a Monica they will just make something up, it doesn’t matter how ridiculous it might be, it will keep Obama busy defending himself. Then, having destroyed his Presidency, they will claim to be our only salvation and will go all out for 2012. This is all they know to do as they only lust for power and the wealth that comes with it. They have no sense of patriotism, no interest in the welfare of the country, no interest in helping anyone but themselves. It used to be that the losers of the election would agree to stand behind the newly elected President and try to do things for the nation and the public good. But this new brand of Republican politics has left that behind in favor of a search and destroy and scorched earth policy. I wish it were not so, but I fear it is so. Obama might be able to find two or three Republicans willing to serve in his administration and even to try to do the right thing, but the neocons and the “base” will never give up their attempt to regain power by any means they can. I fear it is going to be a long and difficult first term, especially when you consider the terrible conditions Obama will inherit from Bush/Cheney to begin with.

Some are criticizing Obama because he is picking former members of the Clinton administration for positions in his administration. So where would they have him look for experienced people? Members of the Bush/Cheney administration are famous only for their almost universal incompetence, he could hardly be expected to look there. And looking back farther than the Clinton years would not seem to be very practical. He could, of course, bring in completely new people with no experience in government, but that would not make much sense and the opposition would go all out to take advantage of them. Frankly, as long as he picks competent people who are qualified for their jobs I will be happy. And no loyalty tests like, “why do you want to serve President Obama?” (instead of the Constitution). Won’t it be a wonderful change! I’m counting the days and praying to the Great Mystery.

LKBIQ:
Television is the first truly democratic culture - the first culture available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want. The most terrifying thing is what people do want.
Clive Barnes

TILT:
Gun nuts are even more paranoid than I thought. They do not like “perfessers,” seem to have no acquaintance with logic or reason, or apparently even sanity.

National Service?

He hits her, chokes her, threatens
her with a knife. She flees.
He sets her bed on fire.

Never mind domestic terrorists, Obama is now seen pallin’ around with war criminals. He was seen (in public no less) spending time with George W. Bush, a known war criminal. This does not, I fear, bode well for the future. Of course I know that under the circumstances he has no choice but to cooperate with Bush on the transition, and I also know that Bush is very personable in person to person interactions, and is apparently serious about helping Obama make this all important transition. I just think it is weird and I worry that Bush/Cheney will not be held accountable for their many crimes. The fact that Obama has asked Reid to allow Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats I think is also not a very good omen. But of course we will just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

The subject of National Service has now been brought to my attention. Most everyone I know seems to be against this idea. I am not so sure. I think what they seem to be most against is the thought that National Service will be mandatory, like the draft. Another objection I perceive on the part of some is that the idea is linked pretty specifically to military service. Many just think that forcing people to do anything is just plain wrong, violates their civil rights and individual liberties and so on. I think this is a much more complicated issue that most people realize.

Could we have a successful system of National Service that is not mandatory? Would it have to have a military bias? What other kinds of service might be both possible and desirable? How would it be funded? How long would it last? What obligations would be entailed on the part of those who participate? How might it be funded? Who would be responsible for it? What, precisely, would it consist of?

We do have some programs already that involve National Service. The Peace Corps come readily to mind. I know there are others as well. I understand that some of these are reasonably successful. But they represent only a tiny fraction of the relevant population, that population being primarily younger people, probably in the range of 18 to 20 years of age. I have not thought deeply on this subject as yet, but certain things do come to mind.

It is not uncommon in many cultures for young people, when they reach a certain age, to have to undergo initiation ceremonies. These are often quite violent and involve physical ordeals that are often brutal. The brutality aside for the moment, these ceremonies also function to instruct the young people in the duties that will be expected of them now that they are becoming of age. They are urged to marry and settle down to gardening or hunting or whatever they do to survive, to have and raise children, to protect the community from dangers, and so on. The brutality is used to reinforce the importance of these lessons. These rites are said to be mandatory but there are sometimes exceptions made for youngsters that are believed to be not quite up to the ordeals. Fathers and/or mothers brothers are often responsible for seeing the initiates through the various ceremonies. As these young people up until that moment have often just run wild, with no duties or responsibilities, it is important to impress upon them the new responsibilities they will have, etc.

Obviously when people here speak of National Service they do not have these kinds of rites in mind. But it might no be a bad idea to impress upon our youths many of the same things – cultural values they should observe, the duties of citizenship, the importance of voting, and so on. This much could perhaps be mandatory.

The service beyond this I believe should probably not be mandatory. The young people should not be forced to perform activities that might be anathema to them. Certainly we should not have a military draft. But some, if so inclined, could volunteer for military service. Others could volunteer for all sorts of other activities that would help train them for careers they might be interested in. Some could even volunteer to work on public projects such as road building or other kinds of construction. Some might wish to pursue interests in nursing or medicine or art and literature. They should be encouraged to improve their lives in ways that are important to them.

Obviously this is a topic that could easily run to book length. But the most basic problems are twofold. First, we would have to know what values and goals should be pursued from the standpoint of having a healthy and functioning culture. Second, how would you motivate the young to pursue such goals. That is, if you want to have a smoothly functioning and worthwhile culture you have to have citizens that are motivated to WANT do what it is they NEED to do. This would require rather massive changes in our current cultural values and goals. Materialism would have to change to idealism. Me first would have to change to country first. Football coaches would have to cease being the most highly paid members of universities. Education and learning would have to be pursued for its own sake. Science would have to take precedence over fairy tales. There would have to be a cultural revolution of sorts. Is this even possible now? If not I fear for what lies ahead of us.

LKBIQ:
On a group of theories one can found a school; but on a group of values one can found a culture, a civilization, a new way of living together among men.
Ignazio Silone

TILT:
The White House has 135 rooms.

One thing and another

Victor, so great to hear from you!

I don’t know where to begin on the current state of insanity in the U.S. Let’s see, maybe guns is a good place to start. Gun sales are reported to have risen noticeably since Obama was elected. Some of this was probably just the usual paranoid insanity of the NRA gun nuts. Some are convinced that Obama means to take their guns away. If that were true, what would be the point of buying more? But of course these new guns, along with all the others they possess, could be hidden for use when the government tries to take over their guns. When you suggest to these nuts that their rifles, pistols, and even AK 47’s wouldn’t be much use against the weapons the government could employ they either look blank or argue they should be allowed 50 caliber machine guns and even howitzers and tanks. As one of them put it the other day, “if you can tow it behind your pickup it ought to be legal.” Who can argue against such logic (insanity). As near as I can determine Obama has a perfectly sensible approach to the problem of guns, recognizing the difference between the needs of rural dwellers and inner city gangs and etc. He has never suggested taking away everyone’s guns. But nothing is sensible when it comes to the NRA.

I read today that the Supreme Court is going to take up the legality of detentions. I assume this includes the detentions at Guantanamo. Somehow it seems to me it’s a bit late to be taking this up? I mean, some of these people have been detained for almost eight years with no charges brought against them, no rights of any kind, and so on. In any case, if past experience is any guide, there is no reason to believe that Bush/Cheney would release them, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. I fervently hope that Obama, as one of his first acts as President, will close this evil place and provide some decent and legal solutions.

Related to this is an article today in Smirking Chimp by Sherwood Ross, “U.S. and Allies Tortured Kids in Iraq Prisons.” This is a report so shocking and terrible I could barely force myself to finish it. If there is any truth to it at all, even the smallest nugget of truth, those responsible should be immediately arrested and tried for crimes against humanity. I have no reason to believe this is not true, but I keep telling myself it just can’t be true, it’s too horrible to be true. But as our beloved Rumsfeld put it, “stuff happens,” and as Cheney said, “we may have to go to the dark side.” Monsters all, and they should be treated as such.

Now the U.S. has admitted that yes, we did kill 32 civilians in another airstrike in Afghanistan. It was still another wedding party. I guess these Middle East wedding parties are easy targets as we seem to be really good at taking them out. But what the hell, with remote controlled drones it’s just like playing Nintendo. Besides, it we let them marry they’ll just breed and produce more people who will hate and despise us forever. Remember that good advice from our American Indian exterminations, “nits make lice.” Is it any wonder that the Afghans and Iraqis want us the hell out of their countries, and that we have lost any moral authority we might have ever claimed to have? When the President of Afghanistan has to beg our President-elect to please stop killing civilians you know we have reached the bottom of the pit of immorality (or is it maybe the top of the pit?).

Finally, there is the claim that Medvedev is “challenging” Obama by threatening to place short range missiles near the Polish border. This raises a question in my mind as to just who is “challenging” whom. We are the ones that are threatening to place our missile defenses in Poland. This might be reasonable if we had a missile defense system that actually worked, and if there was any reason to believe the Iranians were going to attack us with missiles (in Poland?), even if they had such missiles. The Russians interpret this as a threat to them, rightly so as near as I can figure out. This is an even more realistic fear on the part of the Russians as we have expanded NATO around their borders in spite of having promised not to do so, and are continuing to try to expand. This is similar to the situation in Georgia. It has now been established as fact that Georgia started the hostilities, almost certainly with the approval of the U.S. This was a clear challenge to Russia who more than met the challenge, but it is not an example of Russian expansionism as is being claimed. Obama is reported to have had a telephone conversation with Medvedev. Let us hope some more sensible policy will eventually prevail.

Life is a journey
forever towards the west
and the setting sun

Morialekafa

TILT:

There is no complete agreement as to whether or not Mikhall Aleksandrovich Sholokhov’s masterpiece, And Quiet Flows the Don, was plagiarized, and if it was, from whom..

Expectations

Baraboo Bookers defeat library rivals
Mad City Truckers with dancc to
Born to be Wild.using four carts and a dolly.

Libraries apparently have these contests every year in which they choreograph dances using library carts. The Baraboo Bookers will go on to compete at the next level. I never cease being astonished by human behavior.

I supported Barack Obama and voted for him with various expectations, of course not knowing what he would actually do once he attained the office of the President. I have no doubt that my expectations will not be completely met. Perhaps some of them are unreasonable, perhaps some are impossible, and some of my expectations may not even be similar to Obama’s. However things turn out I do not believe I made a mistake in opposing McCain who I thought was a truly terrible candidate and possibility. So:

I had hoped that Obama would be more supportive of the Palestinians and not just favor the Israelis at every turn as Bush/Cheney have done. Expecting peace between them may not be a realistic expectation, but expecting fair play ought to be. The selection of Rahm Emanuel has given me pause. He is a staunch supporter of Israel, even a dual citizen of that country and the U.S., and fought in the past on the Israeli side. Thus I worry that he will influence Obama to continue the unjust and unfair treatment of the Palestinians. On the other hand, he might not. Like many loyal Israelis he may also believe in a fair settlement of their differences. I hope so.

Altough Obama has said all along that he would send more troops to Afghanistan I have hoped that once he became President he would come to his senses and realize that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam. We are not going to “win” anything in Afghanistan no matter how many troops are sent there. We should withdraw the troops and engage in trying to help the Afghans rebuild and improve their country. Will Obama see this my way? I wonder.

Obama said on at least one occasion that he would have his Attorney General review the past few years to determine if their were crimes for which some should be held accountable. In view of all the other monumental problems he will be facing will he in fact pursue this or will he just ignore it? I feel very strongly that those who committed the most serious crimes against our nation and the international community should be held accountable. Am I doomed to be disappointed?

Will he abandon the useless and failed “war on drugs?” He seems to realize that the drug problem is really a medical problem rather than a political one. Thus I would hope he would try to give up our incredibly stupid and harmful drug laws and make drugs legal, thus draining our jails of hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders and saving an enormous amount of money that is now simply wasted.

Will he actually act significantly to rebuild our long too neglected superstructure? I have high hopes that he will in fact do this but of course we have to wait and see and hope he can find the funds to bring this about. The fact that our leaders over many past years neglected this is shameful and, indeed, to me inexplicable. After all, what are leaders for if not to look after such things?

And will he do something about our failing educational system as he says he will? This is to me exceedingly important as the anti-intellectualism in the United States threatens to destroy our country. Consider, for esample, that some 64% of Republicans now favor Sarah Palin to lead their party. This is nothing short of worshipping ignorance. These are not the kinds of people I want to see with any power or influence. The ubiquitous “dumbing down” of our citizens through both our educational system and our mass media will have to stop, along with the preponderance of right-wing hatemongers that seem to be mostly in control of the airways. We need some sort of cultural revolution, but not, of course, on the Chinese model.

I am assuming that Obama, given some time, will manage to improve our dismal financial problems. Similarly, I believe he will make a serious effort to establish a workable and adequate energy policy. And I know he will try to get us a universal health care system. If he accomplishes these things he will have proven to be a great President. If he can accomplish these other things he will become a truly outstanding one. He has the potential. I continue to have high hopes.

LKBIQ:
“Do not try to live forever. You will not succeed.”
George Bernard Shaw

TILT:
An ostrich egg, used as a container, will hold five to five and one half cups of water.

Attorney General?

With the financial crisis as serious as it is, it is perfectly understandable why the economy has to be the highest priority for the Obama administration. It is also very important for Obama to quickly (but thoughtfully) select his various cabinet members, especially Secretaries of Defense and State. These positions have a sense of urgency that cannot be denied. There is, however, another appointment he must make that I believe is of equal or even greater importance, but perhaps not quite as urgent, namely Attorney General. I have not heard a single word about this appointment, who it might be, when it might be, or anything else. Remember that Obama said on at least one occasion that when he was President he would have his Attorney General look into possible abuses of office, etc., and, if appropriate, take some action having to do with them. As there is no dearth of abuses over the past eight years, including crimes against our nation, the international community, and even humanity, this would seem to me to be an exceedingly high priority. I think this is even more true if we wish to re-establish our moral authority and relatively high position in the world of nations. I assume no attention has been devoted to this as yet because it is so potentially explosive an issue. It doubtless needs to wait until Obama is more established in his Presidency and does not appear to be motivated simply by revenge. If some action is not taken to bring our war criminals to accountability what message will that be sending to the rest of the international community? We cannot simply take the position of “letting bygones be bygones.”I fear there is a danger this could happen. We must not allow it to happen.

The largest problem confronting Obama, which his opponents never tire of bringing up, is that he will have no money to finance any of the commendable programs he has in mind. With the national debt at 11.4 trillion (I believe this is the right figure) this is, indeed, a formidable proglem. But as I have mentioned previously, there is a real possibility of saving an enormous amount of money by cutting back the national defense budget. Barney Frank has suggested a 25% reduction. As the national defense budget has only a marginal connection to actual national defense this seems to me eminently feasible. In fact, I doubt anyone would know the difference except the parasites that have benefitted for so long from this military/industrial/political farce. Whatever jobs were lost by this reduction could easily be made up with truly productive jobs in superstructure, green energy, education, and elsewhere.

There is another place where a great deal of money could easily and inexpensively be found: namely, by doing away with the completely failed, useless, and destructive so-called “war on drugs.” Like prohibition this has done nothing but create a large criminal class and fill up our prisons with non-violent offenders, incarcerated for what are trivial marijuana offenses. But it is not merely marijuana that should be legalized. All drugs should be legalized, and the drug problem should be recognized and treated as the medical problem it is, not as a political problem. Let the doctors and drug users deal with this as was always done in the distant past, and is currently being done in places like the Netherlands. Many knowledgeable and respected people, both in drug enforcement and others, have argued for years that drugs should be legalized. Even the ex Seattle Chief of Police has written a book on this topic. As the billions of dollars that have been spent on this have been basically wasted funds, and as the solution is so relatively simple, let us by all means rid ourselves of this unnecessary burden.

Barack Hussein Obama is going to be our 44th President. I think it is absolutely wonderful. And yet, I do not feel euphoric. I feel strangely comforted, as if I have just returned home from a long and unpleasant journey. I feel calm, I believe the worst of our problems may be over, or at least have a good chance of being over. The rage I have felt for so long has subsided, my trust in government has been renewed. It’s not really “happy days are here again,” it’s more like being in a snug harbor or snuggled under a comforter on a cold day, or safe in the arms of my father. I realize how silly this may sound but I don’t know any other way to describe the difference I feel when contrasting the coming Obama administration with the terrorist organization that has occupied us for so long. I know this may turn out to be nothing but an illusion, and Obama is not the second coming, and the problems are yet to be solved, but I sill have a sense of satisfaction and peace of mind that has been missing in my life for the past few years., starting with the bitter and unfair attacks on the Clintons and growing in strength throughout the Bush/Cheney nightmare years. In short, I guess it’s just a huge sigh of relief.

LKBIQ:

Opportunity for all means making taxes fair. I'm not out to soak the rich. But I do believe the rich should pay their fair share. For twelve years, the Republicans have raised taxes on the middle class. It's time to give the middle class tax relief.
Bill Clinton Announcement Speech, October 3, 1991


TILT:
All the great apes build nests in trees, except for gorillas, who build theirs on the ground.

Right, for once

Bubblehead, what terrible news! I sincerely hope that all will go well and that you will quickly recover. All best wishes.


I predicted from very early in the campaign that Obama would win in a landslide. I guess he didn’t quite achieve a true landslide but I am certainly satisfied. It is nice to be right for once, having been wrong so many times. As usual the right-wing media and Rethuglicans began an immediate chorus about Obama not having a mandate. If winning the popular vote by a very large margin, and having double the electoral votes that McCain had doesn’t constitute a mandate, what does? They said Bush had a mandate when he barely scraped by with a much, much smaller margin of victory. But, then, why expect anything but further hypocrisy from this bunch of dishonest clowns. We can look forward to a few years where our government may actually be able to function as something more than just a criminal conspiracy out to rob the taxpayers and deliver the loot to their corporate masters.

Now Obama is going to have to try to govern with both hands tied behind his back, hardly an envious task. But what is he to do with two “wars” and an economy definitely in the tank? There are already three or four “Impeach Obama” sites on MySpace, an indication of just how loony some of the loonies really are. Obama’s pick of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff is, I think, a really good one. But of course people are already complaining that it doesn’t represent change as Emanuel is a hangover from the Clinton administration. No doubt there will be others, too. So who is he supposed to pick, all new people with no experience? Emanuel is a tough, no nonsense type who knows Washington inside and out. Obama is certainly not losing any time in assembling his staff and cabinet.

The Rethuglicans are proving once again there is no honor among thieves. They are all busily pointing fingers of blame at each other, and especially at Sarah Palin (who may or may not deserve it all). I confess it is difficult for me to have sympathy for any of them as they brought it on themselves. Frankly, I hope they never recover and the neocons will be given a featured part in the history of crime and corruption in American politics. Good riddance, I say.

Our first snow of the season tonight. A neighbor reported seeing a bear. They will be denning now, probably already are at higher elevations. Deer season is on and we have the usual photographs in our local paper of all the hunters holding their grisly trophy heads. One of them will win a new hunting rifle. Some of the deer are smart enough to move in closer to the house as they seem to know they are safe there. Most of the hunters here hunt for meat and use what they kill. As there is an overabundance of deer this works out for everyone. It’s trophy hunters I cannot stand. Everything is starting to rest for the winter. Life goes on here at Sandhill.



Though hourly comforts from the gods we see,No life is yet life-proof from misery

Robert Herrick

TILT:
I am far from ready for winter.

Paradigm shattered

Aggressive rooster blocks pedestrians,
threatens women and children,
is given new home in the country.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States represents far more than simply a repudiation of Republican economic philosophy.

I have never believed in miracles. I still don’t. But what we witnessed last night is probably the closest we will ever come to one. The basic paradigm that has informed Western-European thought for the past 600 or more years, that provided the excuse for the unbelievable savagery of colonialism, with its underpinnings of Christian theology, cultural evolution (social Darwinism), the belief in the Great Chain of Being, and its prevailing myth of white superiority: this underlying paradigm that has been slowly eroding for the past few years, was finally shattered once and for all last night with the election of a black man to the Presidency of the United States. However unwittingly, a majority of voters in the United States managed to overcome their lingering racial prejudice and announce to the world that, indeed, all people are equal in dignity and respect within the social contract that binds us together. The full effects of this massive paradigm shift will only be realized over time but will permeate both national and international relations to the benefit of all. I have never been more proud to be an American.

Racism, however, will not disappear easily or quickly in Western-European life. It is part of our literature and even exists in our language and symbolism. The “good guys” wear white hats, the “bad guys” black hats, black is always bad, as in “black hearts,” “black Tuesday,” “blackmail,” “black clouds,” “black thoughts,” “blackhards,” “black widows,” “blackball” “Blackwater,” and so on. Black is a symbol of evil in our culture, of mourning, and of death itself. The very fact that Obama is described as our first Black President is nothing less than a remnant of racial prejudice, a product of the one percent (1%) rule (if you have even 1% of black blood you are considered black). This is why Obama can be described as black, even though he is just as much white as black. In reality he is not our first Black President, he’s our first Black and White President. We insist he is black because of the 1% rule (which I think you have to admit is really pretty stupid). Ideally, his color should be completely irrelevant to his Presidency.

There will be some, of course, who will not rejoice in this monumental achievement, pockets of culture still mired in the early 20th century that will have to be slowly brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Idaho is a good example. Obama apparently received only 36% of the vote in Idaho (I think this is still more votes than any previous Democratic candidate received for a very long time). None of the Democratic candidates here in Boundary County were elected, all losing by large margins. Walt Minnick was elected, defeating Bill Sali, but this is quite an exception as Sali had proven himself not only incompetent but basically useless during his first term in the House. Larry LaRocco, an exceptionally fine candidate for the Senate, was defeated by Jim Risch, a previous Republican Lieutenant Governor. There may have been one or two Democratic candidates elected in the Boise area, and all of the incumbent Democrats were easily re-elected. If this is so, and I guess it is, the pattern would seem to indicate more a fear of change than anything else. To add insult to injury, someone stole our Obama sign last night. Idaho, along with Utah and Wyoming, can retain their place along with the spittoons and six-guns of yesteryear. One good thing about living here, I guess, is that you needn’t worry about being run over by the engines of progress.

LKBIQ:
. The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices.
Frederick The Great

TILT:
A galantine is a dish made from boned poultry or meat, stuffed and pressed into a symmetrical shape, and cooked in a gelatine stock.

Julian's election predictions and From disgraceful to despicable

It is pretty much agreed that the McCain/Palin campaign has been one of the most disgraceful in modern political history. But now, in the last couple of days of the campaign it has moved from merely disgraceful to quite despicable. I say this not only because of the content of their accusations, but because they are such blatant lies. For example, they have resurrected the Reverend Wright controversy and are playing it over and over tonight. It claims that Reverend Wright is a “Preacher of Hate,” and they depend upon the now infamous quote where he says “god damn America.” I confess to not being an expert on the Reverend, and I have no real idea of what he must have said over 20 years of giving sermons, but I would bet that moments like the one they continue to quote are much more rare than his positive sermons. And, as I recall, the quote in question was taken from a sermon in which he had just objected to the fact that American troops were killing innocent civilians, including children. Was he supposed to bless that? Furthermore, if I remember correctly, Wright served honorably and patriotically in our military. Another example of how far the McCain/Palin has deteriorated has to do with there newly brought up charge that Obama once said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry. They have deliberately taken this out of context from a speech he gaver that was in fact in defense of the coal industry. Truth has long since disappeared from their campaign but this is a case even more blatant than most.

“Anyway, my political advisor, my son Julian, wants me to publish his predictions for tomorrow. So here they are:

JULIAN LANGNESS: As I have done several times in the past, I am going to use my dad’s blog to post something of my own. I am very into the specifics of the election- the electoral map, the senate races, the house, etc. so I wanted to post my predictions. The following was originally posted on my facebook account last night but I wanted to put them on my dad’s blog too. So yeah, I hope anyone who reads them enjoys them and yeah, check em out and see if you agree and then see how I do tomorrow night. Thanks, Julian

1) the popular vote
2) the electoral vote and which states each candidate wins
3) all the individiual senate seats that are close and what will happen in the senate
4) and then also the number of house seats the democrats will win.
5) and how walt minnick will do and if he'll beat bill sali and get elected to washington to represent the idaho 1st district (or, as i like to call it- the non mormon half of idaho:) )

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) okay- the popular vote. some of the polls have obama up by 13. which i think is totally unrealistic. no democrat other than lyndon johnson in 1964 has gotten more than 50.1% of the popular vote since the 1940's. and even though this is a very great year for democrats in terms of the perceptions of republicans b/c of bush, etc. and the economy, i think the country is still pretty much a 50-50 country, and that we are in the middle of an extended period where we have very close elections, starting in 2000 and probably continuing for at least a few more cycles. so, i think obama will end up winning the popular vote 52% - 47%.

2) but, of course, the popular vote doesn't matter in the least bit for who gets elected, as we saw in 2000 (although i think even though gore won the popular vote he deserved to lose the election; first, because i believe in the system of electoral votes (for all the reasons why its good read about it on wikipedia), although i do believe he probly won the popular vote in florida, which would have given him the electoral vote anyway, and 2nd because al gore ran an awful campaign, including making the worst VP selection ever- yes, worse than Dan Quayle, or Palin if you consider her up there.
ELECTORAL VOTE: but yeah, most people agree that obama should win every combined gore/kerry states. this is all the regular democrat states, including pennsylvania, along with New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Iowa. this adds up to 264 electoral votes. you need 270 to win. or 269 to tie, and a tie would go to obama because the house of reps than decides it. so that means that if obama can hold on to all those, which he easily should, even though mccain is tryin real hard on pennsylvania, then he only needs ONE more state to win, nevada (5 EVs) or anything bigger. PREDICTION-------- I PREDICT he will win all the kerry/gore states (that includes Pennsylvania) adding to 264 EV's. PLUS: VIRGNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, FLORIDA- 318-220. i also think montana will be the surprise of the election. there are no republican incumbents to bring out state voters. and the state is in the west- they may spend all day hearing about how well obama is doing back east and feel its worthless to go vote for mccain. and finally, it is one of two states where Ron Paul is on the ballot. all this could add up to an obama win. so i think it could very well go more obama than ohio or north carolina and surprise alot of people. another very close electoral vote is in nebraska- not the state, but the omaha district: nebraska and maine are the two states that distribute their votes partially based on who wins congresional districts. so obama could potentially win this single electoral vote. the polls are supposed to be about tied, and i think obama could very welll win it, but i am not going to add it to my official prediction. if obama wins more states than the ones i am predicting, then it will be the tipping point for a landslide, which will mean VA, Fl, CO, NV, Ohio, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana, and Arizona, and the single Nebraska vote from Omaha: 392-146. again though the first one is my offical prediction, the one up above with obama with 318, the second is what will happen if he exceeds 318, which i think will then likely mean a landslide.

3) THE SENATE- the big question is if the dems will go from their current 51 seats to 60, which means a filibuster-proof majority. that would be huge. i think there is no doubt that obama doing well and getting lots of voters out in states like N.C. and Oregon and Minnesota will help the senate candidates there. I think the following will happen:
In COLORADO Udall will win
In NEW MEXICO his cousin the other Udall will win
VIRGINIA former governor Mark Warner (who would have made a far superior VP to Biden) will win in landslide.
In NEW HAMPSHIRE, John Sununu, a good man, will lose because the state is getting so democratic. thats four guaranteed.
In OREGON Jeff Merkely will beat Gordon Smitth, another very good man.
In ALASKA, the "candidate without the college education", will beat "the felon" as a certain someone described them to me... -so begich over stephens
In NORTH CAROLINA Kay Hagan (my favorite!!!) she's awesome, and a hottie:) will beat Liddy Dole (Bob Doles wife), who ran a disgusting and desperate add that backfired in my opinion.
In MINNESOTA, Al Franken, the comedian, despite running an atrocious campaign, will defeat Norm Coleman, the filthy hypocrite who is famous for having been a documented giant pothead in college- and now is an arch-fascist on drug policy. franken "the only new york jew in the race who is actually from minnesota" as he calls himself lol, will ride obama's coattails to victory, and then very likely lose 6 years from now when up for re-election. both these candidates are pathetic. if the election lasted another two months the third party candidate would probably end up winning. with it right now, i say he wins maybe 15 %?
THAT MAKES 59 SEATS. and brings us to what will be the great tragedy of the election- in GEORGIA, the Democratic Candidate- J. Martin, WILL DEFEAT Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent republican who NOBODY would ever believe would lose if you told them six months ago. BUT!!!! Georgia has a rule that if no candidate wins 50% of the vote, there is then a runoff election. there is a third party candidate running, and he will keep Martin from reaching 50%. this means that there will then be a speciall runoff between Martin and Chambliss. and when it happens there won't be hundreds of thousands of black people and kids going out to vote in order to vote for obama, and republicans will be desperate not to lose that 60th seat, so Chambliss will win because he gets a second try.SO, THE DEMS WILL WIN 9 RACES ON TUESDAY NIGHT, BUT ONE WILL GET REVERSED IN THE RUNOFF ELECTION IN GEORGIA, MEANING THEY WILL GO INTO THE NEXT CONGRESS WITH 59 SEATS SEATS IN THE SENATE. if they drop lieberman it will be 58, but i dont think they will. they will also have olympia snowe and susan collins, the two moderate female republican senators from maine, who will probably vote with them enough to give them basically a filibuster proof majority.

4) IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, every seat is up for grabs, just as they are every two years. the dems already won 31 two year ago. so i don't think they will win a number of seats commenserate to what they will in the senate, because the senate was especially wired for a democratic landslide this year becuase the republicans were by chance defending 24 seats, the Democrats only 10. whereas in the house every seat is up for grabs, not just 1/3 like in the senate. so the democrats don't have the same built in advantage this year in the house like they do in the senate. SO, I PREDICT THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL WIN 26 SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

5) Walt Minnick is the democrat running to represent north and west idaho in the national house of represenatives for the idaho 1st district (or the non-mormon district as i like to call it). if minnick wins it could very likely be a race talked about in the national media, as it would be represenative of a democratic landslide, as idaho is often talked about as an example of the ultimate republican state. this is probably accurate in a way, because although our leaders, Jim Hansen and Keith Roark, are doing great things in building our state party, idaho still is a very republican state. this is because of several factors- the large numbers of mormons for one, also the fact that some democrats have unfortunately been outspoken in their opposition to the complete rights of gun owners- like Joe Biden for instance. which is very unfortunate as idaho democrats themselves aren't anti-gun in most cases. and also because of dismissive comments made about idaho by hillary and bill clinton on multiple occasions. so its a tough state for democrats to get elected in. although the 1st district is definitely more accessible to dems than the 2nd, and bill sali is not a popular figure, including among member of his own party. he only won his 2006 primary with 26% of the vote, and a lot of inter-party opposition. and only beat larry grant 55-45 in 2006. a poll shocked many people a couple weeks ago that showed minnick up 52 to 45. many people questioned the accuracy of it, but i think at the least it shows that minnick has a chance, and a good enough one that the DNC decided to put money into it, which they don't do just out of the kindness of their heart, but only where they think they have a chance of winning. SO, MY PREDICTION IS THAT MINNICK WILL GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN AT LEAST 34 SEATS. i think that is about his spot. meaning that if the dems win 33, minnick will come closer to winning that any other democrat who loses. and if the dems win 50 lets say, then minnick will win by a margin larger than 16 of the other victors. as i said earlier though i am predicting net gain of only 26 seats though, so therefore i technically am not predicting a minnick win, although i will be hoping with all my heart that he does, as he is a great guy and has worked extremely hard in his campaign, along with jim and keith and jeanne and all the workers and volunteers and everyone else in the state party who have done such a good job. and i will be ecstatic if he does win! i also would like to note the initiative of debbie holmes in running for the 2nd district seat and putting in all the hard work and heart that it takes to do that. and also larry laroccos run for senate. i think that unfortunately it is still to hard for a dem to win statewide, but if anyone deserves to get elected to the u.s. senate it is larry. i went to a fundraiser for him in denver during the national democratic convention and he was VERY impressive. and if walt loses than i hope larry runs for congress against sali eventually. but i think its still too hard for a dem to win statewide in idaho. maybe a mormon democrat, but yeah, eastern idaho is just too solidly republican as a result of its LDS population. but anyway hopefully a few of you found this somewhat interesting:) and if i end up being correct in my estimates i wanted to have this on here as proof of my foretelling abilities:)

LKBIQ:

No wonder Americans hate politics when, year in and year out, they hear politicians make promises that won't come true because they don't even mean them - campaign fantasies that win elections but don't get nations moving again.
Bill Clinton

tax and spend?

Many years ago, when I first went to work in Los Angeles at UCLA, I needed to find someone to do my taxes. I asked some colleagues and was given the name of John (not his real name) and told that he did most everyone’s taxes there at the Institute. John also would make appointments to see you in your office. So I duly made an appointment with John who came to my office at the appointed time. I was enthralled, and somewhat surprised when John turned out to be a large black man dressed in modish clothes with his shirt open to his waist displaying two or three heavy gold chains. He also had a very large diamond ring. I thought to myself, as I often did in those days, “only in L.A.” John’s first question was, “How do you feel about paying your taxes?” I interpreted this to mean that how he did my taxes might have something to do with how I felt about paying them. In fairness to John I must admit he turned out to be a perfectly conscientious and honest tax preparer, at least within his bounds of being a lawyer as well as an accountant. I was very pleased with him for many years.

This encounter did, however, cause me to think about paying taxes. I told John I didn’t mind payi8ng taxes, in principle, but I objected strongly to how they were being spent, which was then, as it is now, mostly to fund wars and kill people. Obviously you have to pay taxes if you wish to have highways, police and firemen, public amenities and such, as well as national security. I thought then, as I do now, that national security was grossly overfunded, and did not require fighting wars on foreign shores for reasons that were questionable at best. This waste of taxpayer dollars under the Bush/Cheney administration has now reached the point of absolute obscenity, although there is a slight twist to the procedure. Thanks to the festered mind of Dick the Slimy, who observed that “Reagan proved that deficits didn’t matter,” the Bush/Cheney bunch lowered the taxes on the wealthiest people and corporations and changed the policy from “tax and spend,” to “borrow and waste.” And waste they have done on a scale so massive as to bankrupt our country. This way they did not have to use taxpayer money or raise taxes to spend for their idiocy, they could just borrow and borrow instead. Ultimately, of course, the taxpayers will get stuck with having to repay this debt, but what do Bush/Cheney care, they’ve got theirs, and their friends’ as well, and will be gone when our children and their children (and perhaps even their children) will have to fork over all this wasted money. Clever bastards, aren’t they? Not satisfied with how many billions upon billions they already ripped off, they got away with a final 700 plus billion dollar going-away present. Notice you never hear them complain about tax dollars that go to the military/industrial/political complex they have created, it’s always the “entitlements” that are to blame for our financial problems, useless (in their view) things like Social Security, Medicare, and so on.

Thus I hope that when you hear any of these thugs accuse Democrats of being tax and spend liberals, I hope you will remind them of their own policy of borrow and waste. Having run up our national debt now to over 10 trillion dollars they still want to keep their tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy and corporations that have made profits so huge as to be unprecedented. The money these greedy criminals already have has no purpose any more other than making more money through the usurious credit card industry they have promoted. Don’t be fooled by their claim that this wealth “trickles down” and benefits the rest of us. Any “trickling down” that occurs in the form of manufacturing jobs, or productive endeavors is occurring more and more on foreign shores where labor is cheaper and tax breaks are plentiful. Even Ponzi would be awed by the audacity of these bandits.

LKBIQ:
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes

TILT:
Australian researchers have learned that bees can count, but only up to 4. Dumb bees!

Speculation

After 45 years of bowling,
man bowls a perfect game,
dies of a heart attack.

Wouldn’t it be funny – if what used to be the Republican party split in two? It seems to me one might argue that it has been split into two rough segments for the last eight years. The primary segment, which I have called the Brafia, the Bush/Republican cunning criminal conspiracy that has systematically robbed the taxpayers blind while transferring most of the wealth from the middle-class to the obscenely wealthy and their corporations, and another segment which, for want of a better term, let me call here the Loonies. The Loonies, of course, being the racist and homophobic, bible-thumping, evolution denying, armageddon-loving evangelical ultra-rightists that have been shamelessly used to do the bidding of the Brafia by encouraging them to vote for anti-abortion legislation, against gay marriages, and other “cultural issues” that the Brafia itself could not have cared less about and were even against their best interests. It was in interesting strategy and provided a strong enough coalition to manage to steal a couple of elections.

Now, however, the Loonies seem to have found a leader of their own, a shrill young female demagogue who obviously speaks their language and seems to be on the way to establishing them as her own “base.” Ambitious and clever, she has been increasingly independent of John McCain who rather unthinkingly picked her as his running mate. She has broken with him on some issues and has been campaigning lately in Florida with signs that do not even include his name. She once even referred to the Palin/McCain ticket (a slip of the tongue, perhaps). There seems to be little doubt where she is trying to go and admits to wanting to be a big player in the future Republican party. As the Loonies only represent at most about 25% of the voting public she would have to somehow maintain the unholy alliance that has existed between the Loonies and the Brafia. As this has now been exposed it could be difficult.

The Brafia, on the other hand, are basically leaderless at the moment. Although John McCain is their candidate for President it is obvious they are not happy with him and are deserting him in droves. This group is not going to accept Palin as their leader as she is too extreme in her views and too much affiliated with religious zealots and gun nuts. Some say that the Mormon, Mitt Romney, will become the leader of the Brafia. This remains to be seen and may or may not happen, if only because it was the Loonies who opposed him so vigorously this time (evangelicals think Mormonism is a cult and does not represent their version of Christianity). But whoever emerges as the leader of the Brafia probably could not gain enough support without the Loonies, and that would seem to be about where things stand at the moment. Assuming that Barack Obama will, in fact, be elected as our first Black and White President, these factions of what used to be the Republican party will certainly have their work cut out for them. After their terrible excesses of the past eight years they may never recover.

Obama’s lead seems to be increasing day by day, what with so many Republican defections from the McCain campaign, so many newspaper and other endorsements for Obama, the huge early turnout, and so on. I have predicted all along Obama would win with a landslide, primarily because I thought McCain was such a terrible candidate, and it looks like I might actually be at least almost right for a change. Only a couple of days now and this fantastic campaign will finally and mercifully come to an end.


Favorite short poems:

Lost

Stand still. The trees ahead and
bushes beside you
Are not lost. Wherever you are is
called Here,
And you must treat it as a powerful
stranger,
Must ask permission to know it and
be known.
The forest breathes. Listen. It
answers,
I have made this place around you,
If you leave it you may come back
again, saying Here.
No two trees are the same to Raven.
No two branches are the same to
Wren.
If what a tree or a bush does is lost
on you,
You are surely lost. Stand still. The
forest knows Where you are. You must let it find
you.

David Wagoner

TILT:
One of my best friend’s wife died unexpectedly, after 45 years of marriage, completing her inevitable journey to the west.